Bill Overview
Title: Protection of Civilians in Military Operations Act
Description: This bill implements policies and procedures within the Department of Defense (DOD) related to the harm of civilians during U.S. military operations.
Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Target Audience
Population: Civilians affected by U.S. military operations
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill is related to military operations, which can impact civilians in conflict zones.
- Analysis of military operations usually indicates civilians in areas of operation as the primary non-combatant stakeholders.
- The Department of Defense's operations can involve international actions, implying a global potential impact.
- Civilians living in areas where U.S. military operations are conducted will be directly affected by the operational changes in this act.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on reducing civilian harm in areas where the U.S. military operates, which primarily involves non-American civilians in those areas but might indirectly affect American military personnel and their families.
- Civilians in conflict zones are the primary target of the policy, but the wellbeing of U.S. military families might also be indirectly affected due to changes in operational conduct.
- The budget constraints indicate the policy will have to be efficient, targeting key areas of military operations where civilian harm has been significant.
- Consideration of outliers or less common populations, such as those directly working with military humanitarian operations, should be included.
- The indirect impacts in the U.S. may involve military personnel being trained on new procedures, potentially influencing their family life and mental health.
Simulated Interviews
Navy Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will push for better operational strategies.
- There will be a significant focus on reducing civilian harm, which I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Army Public Affairs Officer (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our humanitarian goals.
- It will improve our image internationally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Human Rights Advocate (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More policies like this are needed to reduce harm.
- I am skeptical about the effective implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a necessary step for military accountability.
- How it is enforced will be the main challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Defense Contractor (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will increase demand for our conflict management solutions.
- It poses operational challenges for fulfilling new requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing this policy is essential for improving military ethics.
- Evaluating its long-term success will be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Veteran Affairs Counselor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could reduce trauma and stress for soldiers witnessing civilian harm.
- It’s an overdue policy dimension.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Peace Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While positive, the policy may be too limited in scope.
- Continuous assessment will be needed for real impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Defense Policy Lecturer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations like this are crucial for changing military operational norms.
- Engagement with military leaders over this policy will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Military Family Member (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing civilian harm could ease my husband’s mental burden.
- I worry about what new protocols mean for deployment lengths.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 2: $2550000000 (Low: $2050000000, High: $3050000000)
Year 3: $2600000000 (Low: $2100000000, High: $3100000000)
Year 5: $2700000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 10: $3000000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the policy relies heavily on implementation and monitoring.
- Balancing operational effectiveness with civilian protection might affect military efficiency.
- Long-term diplomatic relationships and international perceptions can be positively influenced by reducing civilian harm.